Calls for the abolition of nuclear weapons have given voice to
the hope that disarmament by the world's great powers will reduce
the risk of inadvertent war among them and discourage proliferation
by smaller states.
Though laudable, this notion could cause new security problems
among those who possess these weapons of mass destruction - and
could encourage proliferation by nuclear "have nots," or increased
production by those with small arsenals.
Among current nuclear powers, the reduction/abolition process
could inadvertently pose three dilemmas. First, as arsenal sizes
diminished, the "payoff" for cheating would grow. For example,
where secretly holding an additional 1,000 warheads makes little
difference when the leading powers have 10,000 apiece - as Russia
and the United States still do - that same cache would profoundly
alter the balance of power if the announced arsenals had been
reduced to 1,000 or lower.
The second dilemma revolves around the increasing vulnerability
of smaller arsenals. At today's levels, either of the leading
nuclear powers could suffer a "first-strike" while still retaining
deadly retaliatory capacity. At lower levels, though, the ability
to respond after absorbing an attack grows problematic,
particularly if the first blow comes as a surprise. This problem
will encourage nuclear powers involved in crises with each other to
alert their forces early and to consider launching their weapons of
mass destruction "on warning," to sidestep a potentially disabling
first strike. Actions of these sorts would greatly raise the
likelihood of the outbreak of an inadvertent nuclear war.
These dilemmas carry particular significance for Russo-American
relations, as these former cold-war adversaries still stand in a
class by themselves - well above all other nuclear powers. However,
the third problem posed by sharp reductions revolves around the
ease with which nuclear aspirants may achieve parity, or more. For
example, if Russia and the US reduced to 1,000 warheads apiece, or
less, then China, which currently has some 500 weapons, could rise
to equality with little additional effort. Even non-nuclear states
such as Germany and Japan could envision easily rising to the first
nuclear rank. For a state concerned that good security relations
might grow disturbed in the future, the prospect of having a
readily achievable path to nuclear parity might prove an
irresistible impulse toward proliferation. …
